All that's needed now is a provocation for a war and it's almost certainly going to come. The US/Nato plans have been stymied badly because of Russia's stand on the Crimea.

There's little doubt that the overthrow of the Ukraine's duly elected government was orchestrated by the US/Nato. If this attempt to encroach further on Russia fails then plans are put on hold indefinitely.

There are definite attempts to keep the propaganda war against Russia alive. This almost certainly means that a few artillery rounds will be launched at the Russian's and that will get the hot war going.

It must be made to appear that the Russians fired the first shots. If the US/Nato can establish that lie then threre's little doubt that the world's sentiments can be won and further US aggression will continue.

The question: How will all this unwind now? Will the Ukraine provoke by shooting, Russia shoots back, and then the US/Nato comes to the rescue by putting a big force into the Ukraine, making it a certainty that the Ukraine is enveloped into Nato?

Or will it develop in a different way? Will it remain a standoff? Is it even a standoff at the moment? Is Russia truly only conducting exercizes with the additional purpose of a ready defence?

At 3/28/2014 12:18:37 PM, monty1 wrote:All that's needed now is a provocation for a war and it's almost certainly going to come. The US/Nato plans have been stymied badly because of Russia's stand on the Crimea.

There's little doubt that the overthrow of the Ukraine's duly elected government was orchestrated by the US/Nato. If this attempt to encroach further on Russia fails then plans are put on hold indefinitely.

There are definite attempts to keep the propaganda war against Russia alive. This almost certainly means that a few artillery rounds will be launched at the Russian's and that will get the hot war going.

It must be made to appear that the Russians fired the first shots. If the US/Nato can establish that lie then threre's little doubt that the world's sentiments can be won and further US aggression will continue.

The question: How will all this unwind now? Will the Ukraine provoke by shooting, Russia shoots back, and then the US/Nato comes to the rescue by putting a big force into the Ukraine, making it a certainty that the Ukraine is enveloped into Nato?

Or will it develop in a different way? Will it remain a standoff? Is it even a standoff at the moment? Is Russia truly only conducting exercizes with the additional purpose of a ready defence?

Military strategists, your ideas?

Teenagers, get it out of your systems and then leave please.

The US/NATO did not organize the downfall of the Ukrainian government. That is absurd and conspiratorial, and putting it in prejudicial terms like ... gee, its not really in doubt ... makes it even worse.

The result in Ukraine was the result of systemic oppression and corruption and a people who had simply had enough. You vastly over estimate what the US is capable of.

That being said, there will be a war of Russia crosses the border in force. They will discover, just like we did when we rolled into Baghadad, that starting a fight in easier than ending one. And at that point, you can bet your butt that the US will supply the Ukrainians with weapons.

Russia should have learned this by its forays into Chechnya and Afghanistan. if the cross the border in force, they will have started a war they cannot win. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.

At 3/28/2014 12:18:37 PM, monty1 wrote:All that's needed now is a provocation for a war and it's almost certainly going to come. The US/Nato plans have been stymied badly because of Russia's stand on the Crimea.

There's little doubt that the overthrow of the Ukraine's duly elected government was orchestrated by the US/Nato. If this attempt to encroach further on Russia fails then plans are put on hold indefinitely.

There are definite attempts to keep the propaganda war against Russia alive. This almost certainly means that a few artillery rounds will be launched at the Russian's and that will get the hot war going.

It must be made to appear that the Russians fired the first shots. If the US/Nato can establish that lie then threre's little doubt that the world's sentiments can be won and further US aggression will continue.

The question: How will all this unwind now? Will the Ukraine provoke by shooting, Russia shoots back, and then the US/Nato comes to the rescue by putting a big force into the Ukraine, making it a certainty that the Ukraine is enveloped into Nato?

Or will it develop in a different way? Will it remain a standoff? Is it even a standoff at the moment? Is Russia truly only conducting exercizes with the additional purpose of a ready defence?

Military strategists, your ideas?

Teenagers, get it out of your systems and then leave please.

The US/NATO did not organize the downfall of the Ukrainian government. That is absurd and conspiratorial, and putting it in prejudicial terms like ... gee, its not really in doubt ... makes it even worse.

The result in Ukraine was the result of systemic oppression and corruption and a people who had simply had enough. You vastly over estimate what the US is capable of.

That being said, there will be a war of Russia crosses the border in force. They will discover, just like we did when we rolled into Baghadad, that starting a fight in easier than ending one. And at that point, you can bet your butt that the US will supply the Ukrainians with weapons.

Russia should have learned this by its forays into Chechnya and Afghanistan. if the cross the border in force, they will have started a war they cannot win. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Thank you for your ideas brother. It's probably quite unnecessary to say that I disagree with most of them. I do accept that it was a rational response!

Two points I need to make: I think it's not all that likely that the US will supply weapons to the Ukraine. I think it much more likely that the US/Nato would bring a peacekeeping force into the Ukriane to hold a standoff while they envelop Ukraine into Nato. Which of course is the ultimate goal.

Russia was provoked and had no choice but to move into the Crimea. Russia was only fortunate that the people of the Crimea were overwhelmingly in favour of Russia and that Russia could accomplich the necessary without bloodshed.

I find it very hard to believe that the US/Nato thought that they could succeed in bringing in the Ukraine to their fold could be accomplished to include the Crimea! There is absolutely no possibility of not provoking Russia into taking a stand.

It would be like Russia taking Hawaii or San Diego naval bases! Not in the cards!

I should have also said that I believe Russia will need to take the Ukraine if the Ukraine starts a shooting war. Russia won't wait until the US/Nato supplies the Ukraine with weapons. That would be such a dangerous confrontation against Russian interests that it very well could be the cause of a nuclear war.

The world will shift uncomfortably in their seats but nothing will actually be done by the West.

Poland will be completely terrified.

That's about it.

I think that's a good reason for the Ukraine to not provoke Russia with aggression over the border into Russia.

But consider that the interests in the Ukraine in some cases would want to see a hot war. Interests of not either the US/Nato or Russia only in that case it would have to be a provocation with small arms fire or terrorist held weapons at best.

The Ukraine has gotten itself into a very uncomfortable position now because there is a good possibility that cheap Russian oil won't be available to them as friends. If Russia demands market price then the Ukraine is sunk financially. However, along with that there is the likelihood that if Russia ups the price it would drive the Ukraine into US/Nato hands sooner.

At 3/28/2014 12:18:37 PM, monty1 wrote:All that's needed now is a provocation for a war and it's almost certainly going to come. The US/Nato plans have been stymied badly because of Russia's stand on the Crimea.

There's little doubt that the overthrow of the Ukraine's duly elected government was orchestrated by the US/Nato. If this attempt to encroach further on Russia fails then plans are put on hold indefinitely.

There are definite attempts to keep the propaganda war against Russia alive. This almost certainly means that a few artillery rounds will be launched at the Russian's and that will get the hot war going.

It must be made to appear that the Russians fired the first shots. If the US/Nato can establish that lie then threre's little doubt that the world's sentiments can be won and further US aggression will continue.

The question: How will all this unwind now? Will the Ukraine provoke by shooting, Russia shoots back, and then the US/Nato comes to the rescue by putting a big force into the Ukraine, making it a certainty that the Ukraine is enveloped into Nato?

Or will it develop in a different way? Will it remain a standoff? Is it even a standoff at the moment? Is Russia truly only conducting exercizes with the additional purpose of a ready defence?

Military strategists, your ideas?

Teenagers, get it out of your systems and then leave please.

The US/NATO did not organize the downfall of the Ukrainian government. That is absurd and conspiratorial, and putting it in prejudicial terms like ... gee, its not really in doubt ... makes it even worse.

1) It's not too much of a stretch to develop a theory that Edward Snowden is a Sino-Russian double agent. He broke every single law that mattered for an intelligence personnel the moment he fled the country with massive amounts of classified.2) It's not too much of a stretch to think that the Arab Spring had US involvement, especially from the State Department.3) It's not too much of a stretch to think that Mubarak was ousted because the US, which had undue influence over the Egyptian military, wanted Mubarak to be ousted.4) Given the above, it's also not too much of a stretch to say that the provisional government heading the Ukraine right now is a result of the US/NATO expressing its will in the country.

The Russians are doing the same in the Crimea.

The result in Ukraine was the result of systemic oppression and corruption and a people who had simply had enough. You vastly over estimate what the US is capable of.

That being said, there will be a war of Russia crosses the border in force. They will discover, just like we did when we rolled into Baghadad, that starting a fight in easier than ending one. And at that point, you can bet your butt that the US will supply the Ukrainians with weapons.

Russia should have learned this by its forays into Chechnya and Afghanistan. if the cross the border in force, they will have started a war they cannot win. And they will have no one to blame but themselves.

What if the Ukraine fired first? Better yet, regardless of who fired first, what if that is what Russia claimed?

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

1) It's not too much of a stretch to develop a theory that Edward Snowden is a Sino-Russian double agent. He broke every single law that mattered for an intelligence personnel the moment he fled the country with massive amounts of classified.

Not going to provide, this one is fairly obvious.

2) It's not too much of a stretch to think that the Arab Spring had US involvement, especially from the State Department.

4) Given the above, it's also not too much of a stretch to say that the provisional government heading the Ukraine right now is a result of the US/NATO expressing its will in the country.

The Russians are doing the same in the Crimea.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I find it very hard to believe that the US/Nato thought that they could succeed in bringing in the Ukraine to their fold could be accomplished to include the Crimea! There is absolutely no possibility of not provoking Russia into taking a stand.

It would be like Russia taking Hawaii or San Diego naval bases! Not in the cards!

I think a more appropriate parallel is if China moved to take Taiwan because a significant portion of Taiwan wanted China to do so. Not easy to believe today, but if the balance of power in the region continues to shift to China, China will eventually make this move, Taiwan will find more and more compelling reasons to support such a move (economics, trade), and the US will be left with little option other than the military option.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I find it very hard to believe that the US/Nato thought that they could succeed in bringing in the Ukraine to their fold could be accomplished to include the Crimea! There is absolutely no possibility of not provoking Russia into taking a stand.

It would be like Russia taking Hawaii or San Diego naval bases! Not in the cards!

I think a more appropriate parallel is if China moved to take Taiwan because a significant portion of Taiwan wanted China to do so. Not easy to believe today, but if the balance of power in the region continues to shift to China, China will eventually make this move, Taiwan will find more and more compelling reasons to support such a move (economics, trade), and the US will be left with little option other than the military option.

China will wait for the right time to take back Taiwan. 100 years is not too long to wait. When the right time comes the US will not even consider intervening. And I think it's a certainty that the US/Nato intervened in the Ukraine but won't dare in Taiwan. Nor will China move prematurely.

I find it very hard to believe that the US/Nato thought that they could succeed in bringing in the Ukraine to their fold could be accomplished to include the Crimea! There is absolutely no possibility of not provoking Russia into taking a stand.

It would be like Russia taking Hawaii or San Diego naval bases! Not in the cards!

I think a more appropriate parallel is if China moved to take Taiwan because a significant portion of Taiwan wanted China to do so. Not easy to believe today, but if the balance of power in the region continues to shift to China, China will eventually make this move, Taiwan will find more and more compelling reasons to support such a move (economics, trade), and the US will be left with little option other than the military option.

China will wait for the right time to take back Taiwan. 100 years is not too long to wait. When the right time comes the US will not even consider intervening. And I think it's a certainty that the US/Nato intervened in the Ukraine but won't dare in Taiwan. Nor will China move prematurely.

Hmmm...that's hard to say. Perhaps the point you're making here is that Russia acted prematurely? That maybe Russia should have been more patient and just waited for the time when the US/NATO would not even think of intervening in the Crimea?

IMHO that time is never. It will unquestionably take some degree of sabre-rattling to effect border change. The only real question is whether or not such efforts succeed or fail. Agree that public, interventionist tendencies by the West complicate Russia's efforts.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

The world will shift uncomfortably in their seats but nothing will actually be done by the West.

Poland will be completely terrified.

That's about it.

But the UK and the US are obligated by treaty to defend Ukraine. If the UK gets involved - something more likely than the US - then it becomes more likely that the rest of the West could get involved.

Someone in another thread brought up the Budapest memorandum, which outlines what the Ukraine can expect the US/NATO to do during a military crisis. The West was clear that direct, military intervention was off the table.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

1) It's not too much of a stretch to develop a theory that Edward Snowden is a Sino-Russian double agent. He broke every single law that mattered for an intelligence personnel the moment he fled the country with massive amounts of classified.

Not going to provide, this one is fairly obvious.

2) It's not too much of a stretch to think that the Arab Spring had US involvement, especially from the State Department.

4) Given the above, it's also not too much of a stretch to say that the provisional government heading the Ukraine right now is a result of the US/NATO expressing its will in the country.

The Russians are doing the same in the Crimea.

I have to say that I am actually waiting for you to respond :D

Wouldn't think the war in Ukraine will ever happened though, Ukraine had pretty huge army (1000+ tanks) and will certainly got an assistant from the west. Although Russia army is far larger, it's only 4 times larger and they don't have only one front to focus on, so for me the war look too costly for the Rus. The west on the hands, already have Ukraine in their palm, which in itself is a strategic victory (even with Crimea, the Russian position can still be considered a defeat with the lost of Ukraine) so there isn't mush reason to start war over it.

I believe after a year when Crimea is fully annexed, everybody will stop caring about it and be business as usual. Perhaps even in a few months from now.

1) It's not too much of a stretch to develop a theory that Edward Snowden is a Sino-Russian double agent. He broke every single law that mattered for an intelligence personnel the moment he fled the country with massive amounts of classified.

Not going to provide, this one is fairly obvious.

2) It's not too much of a stretch to think that the Arab Spring had US involvement, especially from the State Department.

4) Given the above, it's also not too much of a stretch to say that the provisional government heading the Ukraine right now is a result of the US/NATO expressing its will in the country.

The Russians are doing the same in the Crimea.

I have to say that I am actually waiting for you to respond :D

Yeah, been waiting for you to come back too. WB =)

Wouldn't think the war in Ukraine will ever happened though, Ukraine had pretty huge army (1000+ tanks) and will certainly got an assistant from the west. Although Russia army is far larger, it's only 4 times larger and they don't have only one front to focus on, so for me the war look too costly for the Rus. The west on the hands, already have Ukraine in their palm, which in itself is a strategic victory (even with Crimea, the Russian position can still be considered a defeat with the lost of Ukraine) so there isn't mush reason to start war over it.

I think modern conventional warfare is mainly determined by air superiority, and I'm pretty sure Russia's got the upper hand there. I don't expect a lot of Russian casualties if they do end up going to war.

I believe after a year when Crimea is fully annexed, everybody will stop caring about it and be business as usual. Perhaps even in a few months from now.

The real question would be after a war, what about the occupation? Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Iraq have proven that oftentimes, the occupation is the "real war" and oftentimes is what goes catastrophically wrong in war planning.

That's also probably where and when the bulk of US/NATO assistance will flow (covertly) into the Ukraine. If they try to escalate the war before the occupation, they run the risk of Russia calling their bluff and escalating to nuclear warfare.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I think modern conventional warfare is mainly determined by air superiority, and I'm pretty sure Russia's got the upper hand there. I don't expect a lot of Russian casualties if they do end up going to war.

Just to put this in perspective, what the US is worried about (besides the nukes) when it comes to North Korea is their artillery regiments. It's not that NK has a lot of them (they do) or that they pose any chance for NK to win such a conflict...it's because we know that those artillery pieces are the only parts of NK's military capable of inflicting significant damage to South Korea in the several hours of life they have before US air power destroys them. The moment any of them go active, there will either be a fighter or a missile incoming. We have several ways of detecting activity that do not involve actually operating the artillery equipment...meaning that those pieces can be destroyed without ever firing a single shot if NK does not fire first.

The only way to circumvent such air dominance is for the opposing force to fight asymmetrically, i.e. blend in with civilian populations, take shelter in schools and hospitals and etc...we brand this as terrorism...all terrorism is is just another tactic to preserve force strength.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I think modern conventional warfare is mainly determined by air superiority, and I'm pretty sure Russia's got the upper hand there. I don't expect a lot of Russian casualties if they do end up going to war.

Just to put this in perspective, what the US is worried about (besides the nukes) when it comes to North Korea is their artillery regiments. It's not that NK has a lot of them (they do) or that they pose any chance for NK to win such a conflict...it's because we know that those artillery pieces are the only parts of NK's military capable of inflicting significant damage to South Korea in the several hours of life they have before US air power destroys them. The moment any of them go active, there will either be a fighter or a missile incoming. We have several ways of detecting activity that do not involve actually operating the artillery equipment...meaning that those pieces can be destroyed without ever firing a single shot if NK does not fire first.

I don't think that would always be the case though, true if you can achieve air dominance that is going to be a huge advantage but in densely protected hostile air space, that is not going to be easy. Unless, of course, you have superior countermeasure (stealth, ECM which the Russian's never knew to be good at any of them) or take their fleet out completely by surprise which I think will hardly be the case, given the current situation.

Think of it this way, they even lose a Backfire to the MANPAD in South Ossetia. If that can happened, I think it would be far worse in a case of Ukraine where the technological level is similar.

The only way to circumvent such air dominance is for the opposing force to fight asymmetrically, i.e. blend in with civilian populations, take shelter in schools and hospitals and etc...we brand this as terrorism...all terrorism is is just another tactic to preserve force strength.

I think that may be a tactic that the Ukraine government would do from now on, blend in with Crimean population and instigate a terrorist attack to demoralize the support for Crimea independent. It will then be up to the Russian intelligent to counter it. And the Russian has world class intelligent service, they probably wrote book for espionage.

I think modern conventional warfare is mainly determined by air superiority, and I'm pretty sure Russia's got the upper hand there. I don't expect a lot of Russian casualties if they do end up going to war.

Just to put this in perspective, what the US is worried about (besides the nukes) when it comes to North Korea is their artillery regiments. It's not that NK has a lot of them (they do) or that they pose any chance for NK to win such a conflict...it's because we know that those artillery pieces are the only parts of NK's military capable of inflicting significant damage to South Korea in the several hours of life they have before US air power destroys them. The moment any of them go active, there will either be a fighter or a missile incoming. We have several ways of detecting activity that do not involve actually operating the artillery equipment...meaning that those pieces can be destroyed without ever firing a single shot if NK does not fire first.

I don't think that would always be the case though, true if you can achieve air dominance that is going to be a huge advantage but in densely protected hostile air space, that is not going to be easy. Unless, of course, you have superior countermeasure (stealth, ECM which the Russian's never knew to be good at any of them) or take their fleet out completely by surprise which I think will hardly be the case, given the current situation.

Ok, let's add a bit of structure to this:

Air superiority: To be superior in the air, to have air superiority, means having sufficient control of the air to make air attacks on the enemy without serious opposition and, on the other hand, to be free from the danger of serious enemy air incursions. Of course, variations exist within the category of air superiority.http://www.au.af.mil...

So, when you talk about " densely protected hostile air space", that's not air superiority, as there is still a danger to fighters operating in that area. Air superiority would entail eliminating this protection, so taking out SAM sites would be part of establishing air superiority. Basically, fighters and bombers operating uncontested in hostile air space is air superiority.

This is just generally speaking, there are supposedly categories of air superiority...I'm just focusing on the general concept.

We have air superiority over North Korea. They have SAMs, sure, we have cruise missiles and stealth to deal with those. They don't have an air force that can challenge ours.

Think of it this way, they even lose a Backfire to the MANPAD in South Ossetia. If that can happened, I think it would be far worse in a case of Ukraine where the technological level is similar.

Yeah, nothing is perfect, lol.

The only way to circumvent such air dominance is for the opposing force to fight asymmetrically, i.e. blend in with civilian populations, take shelter in schools and hospitals and etc...we brand this as terrorism...all terrorism is is just another tactic to preserve force strength.

I think that may be a tactic that the Ukraine government would do from now on, blend in with Crimean population and instigate a terrorist attack to demoralize the support for Crimea independent. It will then be up to the Russian intelligent to counter it. And the Russian has world class intelligent service, they probably wrote book for espionage.

See, this is where US policy is so fvcked up. The moment Russia labels the Ukrainian government as a terrorist organization in the Crimea, the West will have to figure out how this is consistent with their "War on Terror". Sooner or later, if there are hostilities or a military occupation, it will get there, and we're going to have to figure out WTF is meant by "War on Terror". Does it only apply to Muslims??

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I think that may be a tactic that the Ukraine government would do from now on, blend in with Crimean population and instigate a terrorist attack to demoralize the support for Crimea independent. It will then be up to the Russian intelligent to counter it. And the Russian has world class intelligent service, they probably wrote book for espionage.

See, this is where US policy is so fvcked up. The moment Russia labels the Ukrainian government as a terrorist organization in the Crimea, the West will have to figure out how this is consistent with their "War on Terror". Sooner or later, if there are hostilities or a military occupation, it will get there, and we're going to have to figure out WTF is meant by "War on Terror". Does it only apply to Muslims??

Doesn't sound too hard for me, see the US government had support a terrorist group and terrorist government for YEARS in form of Afghan Mujahideen and Pakistan Government. The US foreign policy is always realistic when it came to contest of influence and both your citizen and your allied government knew it. That's why they throw in enormous support to the Ukraine's revolution despite it is illegal and not exactly democratic movement in clear contrast to the gesture toward Thailand PDRC movement despite the obvious similarity.

If worse came to worse and the Ukraine did resort to terrorist, I can easily imagine that your government will just label it as a freedom fighting attempt by the oppressed Ukraine minority and support it anyway (or at least take no action against it). Western Europe may soon follow and the Asian allies in the east will simply take a neutral stance and that's it, your Crimean front is now established.

But as I said earlier, Russian intelligent service wrote the whole book on espionage for everyone on the globe to follow (and I mean even the US was included in some part) and given their overwhelming supportive gesture from the Crimean populace, the unrest attempt sound very risky. The entire episode on Ukraine revolution is already a strategic victory for NATO, I don't see why anyone would even want to go even further to fight the Russian on their own game just to weaken their already decades old Black Sea Fleet.

I think that may be a tactic that the Ukraine government would do from now on, blend in with Crimean population and instigate a terrorist attack to demoralize the support for Crimea independent. It will then be up to the Russian intelligent to counter it. And the Russian has world class intelligent service, they probably wrote book for espionage.

See, this is where US policy is so fvcked up. The moment Russia labels the Ukrainian government as a terrorist organization in the Crimea, the West will have to figure out how this is consistent with their "War on Terror". Sooner or later, if there are hostilities or a military occupation, it will get there, and we're going to have to figure out WTF is meant by "War on Terror". Does it only apply to Muslims??

Doesn't sound too hard for me, see the US government had support a terrorist group and terrorist government for YEARS in form of Afghan Mujahideen and Pakistan Government. The US foreign policy is always realistic when it came to contest of influence and both your citizen and your allied government knew it. That's why they throw in enormous support to the Ukraine's revolution despite it is illegal and not exactly democratic movement in clear contrast to the gesture toward Thailand PDRC movement despite the obvious similarity.

If worse came to worse and the Ukraine did resort to terrorist, I can easily imagine that your government will just label it as a freedom fighting attempt by the oppressed Ukraine minority and support it anyway (or at least take no action against it). Western Europe may soon follow and the Asian allies in the east will simply take a neutral stance and that's it, your Crimean front is now established.

But as I said earlier, Russian intelligent service wrote the whole book on espionage for everyone on the globe to follow (and I mean even the US was included in some part) and given their overwhelming supportive gesture from the Crimean populace, the unrest attempt sound very risky. The entire episode on Ukraine revolution is already a strategic victory for NATO, I don't see why anyone would even want to go even further to fight the Russian on their own game just to weaken their already decades old Black Sea Fleet.

Everything you said here makes a lot of sense, and I generally agree very much with most of your geopolitical view, especially the glossing over of ideological inconsistencies. I think the most telling inconsistency is how terrifying the US was during its "War on Terror", lol.

I did a quick search on the web about this, and this article struck me as a very good description of how this may be perceived in the US:

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

I think that may be a tactic that the Ukraine government would do from now on, blend in with Crimean population and instigate a terrorist attack to demoralize the support for Crimea independent. It will then be up to the Russian intelligent to counter it. And the Russian has world class intelligent service, they probably wrote book for espionage.

See, this is where US policy is so fvcked up. The moment Russia labels the Ukrainian government as a terrorist organization in the Crimea, the West will have to figure out how this is consistent with their "War on Terror". Sooner or later, if there are hostilities or a military occupation, it will get there, and we're going to have to figure out WTF is meant by "War on Terror". Does it only apply to Muslims??

Doesn't sound too hard for me, see the US government had support a terrorist group and terrorist government for YEARS in form of Afghan Mujahideen and Pakistan Government. The US foreign policy is always realistic when it came to contest of influence and both your citizen and your allied government knew it. That's why they throw in enormous support to the Ukraine's revolution despite it is illegal and not exactly democratic movement in clear contrast to the gesture toward Thailand PDRC movement despite the obvious similarity.

If worse came to worse and the Ukraine did resort to terrorist, I can easily imagine that your government will just label it as a freedom fighting attempt by the oppressed Ukraine minority and support it anyway (or at least take no action against it). Western Europe may soon follow and the Asian allies in the east will simply take a neutral stance and that's it, your Crimean front is now established.

But as I said earlier, Russian intelligent service wrote the whole book on espionage for everyone on the globe to follow (and I mean even the US was included in some part) and given their overwhelming supportive gesture from the Crimean populace, the unrest attempt sound very risky. The entire episode on Ukraine revolution is already a strategic victory for NATO, I don't see why anyone would even want to go even further to fight the Russian on their own game just to weaken their already decades old Black Sea Fleet.

Everything you said here makes a lot of sense, and I generally agree very much with most of your geopolitical view, especially the glossing over of ideological inconsistencies. I think the most telling inconsistency is how terrifying the US was during its "War on Terror", lol.

I did a quick search on the web about this, and this article struck me as a very good description of how this may be perceived in the US:

It is an interesting article, although I found its reasoning and logic to be pessimistic. As they have mentioned earlier, people used to predict haw bad thing could happen at the end of the Cold War - and it didn't happen, I believe that it will be the same this time too. Unlike the Cold War era, the we in the modern era has been globalized, we depend on each other more than ever, which is a good thing because we are mush less likely to start a stupid fight and ruined ourselves over again.

If we're really in the 19th century, the Rus will rush in to the Ukraine by now, which they don't because of trade - and of nuke something a guy from the Great War era didn't have.

I think that may be a tactic that the Ukraine government would do from now on, blend in with Crimean population and instigate a terrorist attack to demoralize the support for Crimea independent. It will then be up to the Russian intelligent to counter it. And the Russian has world class intelligent service, they probably wrote book for espionage.

See, this is where US policy is so fvcked up. The moment Russia labels the Ukrainian government as a terrorist organization in the Crimea, the West will have to figure out how this is consistent with their "War on Terror". Sooner or later, if there are hostilities or a military occupation, it will get there, and we're going to have to figure out WTF is meant by "War on Terror". Does it only apply to Muslims??

Doesn't sound too hard for me, see the US government had support a terrorist group and terrorist government for YEARS in form of Afghan Mujahideen and Pakistan Government. The US foreign policy is always realistic when it came to contest of influence and both your citizen and your allied government knew it. That's why they throw in enormous support to the Ukraine's revolution despite it is illegal and not exactly democratic movement in clear contrast to the gesture toward Thailand PDRC movement despite the obvious similarity.

If worse came to worse and the Ukraine did resort to terrorist, I can easily imagine that your government will just label it as a freedom fighting attempt by the oppressed Ukraine minority and support it anyway (or at least take no action against it). Western Europe may soon follow and the Asian allies in the east will simply take a neutral stance and that's it, your Crimean front is now established.

But as I said earlier, Russian intelligent service wrote the whole book on espionage for everyone on the globe to follow (and I mean even the US was included in some part) and given their overwhelming supportive gesture from the Crimean populace, the unrest attempt sound very risky. The entire episode on Ukraine revolution is already a strategic victory for NATO, I don't see why anyone would even want to go even further to fight the Russian on their own game just to weaken their already decades old Black Sea Fleet.

Everything you said here makes a lot of sense, and I generally agree very much with most of your geopolitical view, especially the glossing over of ideological inconsistencies. I think the most telling inconsistency is how terrifying the US was during its "War on Terror", lol.

I did a quick search on the web about this, and this article struck me as a very good description of how this may be perceived in the US:

It is an interesting article, although I found its reasoning and logic to be pessimistic. As they have mentioned earlier, people used to predict haw bad thing could happen at the end of the Cold War - and it didn't happen, I believe that it will be the same this time too. Unlike the Cold War era, the we in the modern era has been globalized, we depend on each other more than ever, which is a good thing because we are mush less likely to start a stupid fight and ruined ourselves over again.

If we're really in the 19th century, the Rus will rush in to the Ukraine by now, which they don't because of trade - and of nuke something a guy from the Great War era didn't have.

The main point I was making with the article was how the War on Terror will be relevant to this...and the article essentially stated that this is the end of the War on Terror.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?